Banks, shareholders and grower/investors have all been traumatised by their recent dealings with forest companies and they’re all reconsidering their position.

The only other major source of much needed capital for the industry are Governments, so it was not a complete surprise to see industry lobbyist Dr Amos launch such a spirited, if at times venomous response ( On TT: Beware of Academics Bearing Arithmetic, HERE ) to attention being drawn to the level of Government assistance already enjoyed by his industry.

If the arguments advanced by Dr Amos on this occasion are the same ones being presented to the Roundtable, it’s little wonder that progress is slow.

Talking about MISs Dr Amos said “the benefit of these schemes was provided to investors, as distinct from industry. Plantations were indeed promoted and planted under these schemes, but to argue that they are there by way of subsidy is a bit rich.”

That is a silly statement. It’s like saying the First Home Owners Grant is purely designed to help people pursue The Great Australian Dream and to suggest that it is de facto assistance to the housing industry is “a bit rich”.

Economics 101 will differentiate between legal incidence and economic incidence. Just because a subsidy is received by Person A the economic benefits might nevertheless accrue to Person B.

Aside from an occasional economist in the employ of industry at the time, there is no support for the view that MISs aren’t a form of assistance to the forestry industry. Why else do they lobby so hard for their retention? A benevolent concern for investors?

Hardly.

Dr Amos also trots out the sophist argument that whatever is the level of subsidy, as long as it’s less than the level of dole it makes economic sense. That is an even sillier statement than his MIS claim. This would mean every industry would be justified in seeking assistance up to the level of dole for each person employed. What about capital intensive industries? What a patently puerile proposition.

When resources stop flowing into industry A, they instead find somewhere else to go, say Industry B. To suggest that the economy is static and the only alternative to Industry A is the dole is just plain nonsense.

The simple fact of the matter is that the amount of assistance that a Government can afford is finite (although this election campaign may suggest otherwise), and accordingly it is incumbent for Governments to allocate resources where the return may be highest. The forest industry is yet to demonstrate that its returns fit this category. The need to prevent “social and economic misery to individuals, families and businesses around the State” applies to all industries not just forestry and to use it on this occasion is just emotive rubbish. He must be under pressure and is resorting to whatever arguments he can muster. Not surprising I guess, after all it looks as if he has ignored all warning signs and has driven his industry to the edge of a precipice.

It’s scary to read claims from Dr Amos that ”around $65 million a year to support an industry that provides an annualized return to Gross State product of around $1.4 billion…...... would appear to me to be a reasonably sound investment”. Since when is turnover a proxy measure of economic return? Do ASX Companies trade on a multiple of their turnover? Should we consider poker machine turnover to be a reliable measure of that industry’s value? It’s just another unsubstantiated claim. But it seems to follow the pattern of claims by the industry. Make sure it’s a BIG NUMBER. Don’t worry if it makes little sense. The reader won’t understand anyway. But they will remember a BIG NUMBER. And the BIGGER the better.

While on the subject of big numbers and Dr Amos’ slur that academic sceptics like Graeme Wells aren’t earning their keep, it may be worth revisiting what lobbyists like Dr Amos have been doing to earn their keep.

The FFIC, of which FIAT is the most prominent member, released The New Forest Industry Plan in February 2010. It is presumably being discussed at the Roundtable. I hope all participants have read it as they decide our future. It is largely a cut and paste from an August 2009 report by URS Forestry, a firm of forest consultants, titled Economic Impacts of Potential Forest Industry Developments in Tasmania.

The FFIC report is subtitled A Fresh Approach. Indeed it is. Pioneering in some respects as we shall see.

A table in the Report sets out an industry wish list of suitable processing plants for the New Forest Industry. These include a pulp mill, listed to cost only $1.45 billion. Capital investment, turnover and jobs created are listed. I have extracted the most relevant numbers in the following table. I’ve added the last 3 lines, the total final output, the total of the intermediate services and the resultant net earnings.

The new projects will require a capital investment of $2,130 million but will produce direct income of $1,260 million employing 885 persons.

So there can be no doubt about the income figure, the URS report says the “estimates of gross income presented in this report represent the value of output of each of the mills” (a pulp mill, hardwood and softwood sawmills etc).

The new projects will require harvesting and cartage contractors, 650 workers producing income of $240 million. This latter amount will be an expense of the various mills.

In addition there are another 1000 jobs, described best in the URS Forestry Report as “a conservative estimate for jobs as the employment multiplier is applied only to jobs in the processing operations.” The direct income from these jobs is estimated to be $1,000 million. That’s right, $1 million per job. The 1,000 jobs is a figure derived by standard industry multipliers, so it is claimed. The source of the figure of $1 million per job is not explained. But the jobs are in, or at least related to, the processing operations; at least we can be sure of that. They’re jobs within the forest industry that can only be supported by the income from the various mills.

Hence the additional processing related jobs plus the harvesting and cartage contractors will generate direct income of $1,240 million. Which must be an expense to the various mills which produce total income of $1,260 million. Which only leaves $20 million on the bottom line. Before interest and depreciation. Not much.

This industry plan is typical of such plans which talk about turnover not profits, sustainability maybe but never profitability. Without the latter what’s the point? The only solution is more Government subsidies. They’re not business plans but rather PR documents. If a PDS statement, an offer document to investors contained the misleading info contained in The New Forest Industry Plan, ASIC would demand a rewrite. The report deliberately uses confusing terms like ‘value added’ when ‘gross income’ is what is meant. For instance even though the income of the contractors and support workers of $1,240 million is an expense to the various mills which produce income of $1,260 million the 2 figures are added together and presented as $2.5 billion in value adding opportunities. How profoundly deceptive is that? Every $ earned and spent creates $2 in value adding opportunities.

A ridiculous notion.

The problem for the forest industry is that it might be difficult to raise capital for the various new projects when the proposed combined bottom line before interest and depreciation is only $20 million.

The industry has not only run out of ideas that work, it’s run out of capital.

All the talk about the search for a social license is nonsense. It’s capital that’s needed.

Banks are wary, shareholders shy, and grower/investors extremely reluctant to advance more capital.

Banks have all suffered from the failures of Timbercorp, Great Southern and FEA.

Shareholders have been dudded. Even the Gunns’ shareholders who are still ‘alive’ have suffered big losses. Capital contributions of $500 million over the last 3 years have been devalued by over 60%.

The recent reports from FEA’s Administrator suggesting that most of their grower/investors will be lucky to secure a return of their original investment after 10 to 13 years will hardly give them sufficient confidence to line up like Oliver Twist and ask for a second helping.

But it is the nature of the industry structure that is of most concern to the industry at this stage.

In the same way that MIS schemes allowed for a lot of “hot” money (speculative money in other words) to flow into their industry, come harvest time it can just as easily flow out.

Digress for a moment.

The East Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 was exacerbated by all the “hot” foreign money that flowed into the area suddenly deciding to retrace its steps. The “hot” money flew out and caused all sorts of problems.

Similarly with MIS schemes. “Hot” money flowed in as investors were persuaded by the wisdom of their financial advisors to invest in trees.

But come harvest time it is likely to flow out. It is likely that most MIS investors will take whatever MIS proceeds fortuitously land in their laps and reinvest them outside the forest industry.

If crops were owned by forest companies, then harvest proceeds, however meagre will be used, as retained earnings, to help reinvest and maintain that forest company.

But in the case of MIS schemes the harvest proceeds could well be lost to the forest industry at harvest time if investors invest their proceeds elsewhere.

So not only will the industry have to find the $2.5 million to fund the new capital works proposed by The New Forest Industry Plan, they will have to find another $500 million if existing MIS investors ‘withdraw’ their funds.

Whilst MIS schemes were undoubtedly responsible for the rapid growth of the host industry, their inherently flawed structure contains the seeds of destruction of their host.

At this stage the mere slowdown of funds into the industry has caused major problems.

As yet we haven’t seen major outflows.

But that’s only because harvesting hasn’t occurred in most cases.

If outflows occur it will place the industry in a difficult position. How will new plantations be funded?

The FFIC Plan has convinced me of one thing, which is followers of the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception still exist. Replacement trees just happen. It is not known who will pay for them.

This is despite the numbers from say FT’s Annual Reports which show, for instance that the net proceeds from its half share, with GMO, of our publicly owned radiata pine plantations are insufficient to plant replacement crops.

What’s going to happen with say the plantations at Surrey Hills, behind Burnie, where MAIs are between 8 and 10 tonnes per hectare per year. Who’s going to replant those crops, if indeed they ever grow to harvestable size?

To expect a couple of foresters to design a business plan for the forest industry when questions of cash flow and profitability of a complex industry are well beyond their areas of expertise, suggests that FFIC is living in a world of illusion.

All grower/ investors I talk with are dissatisfied with the current structure of the industry and the returns they are receiving and many are thinking of quitting.

It’s said money speaks all languages. The only words I’m hearing as it heads for the exits are au revoir…..... auf wiedersehen…........ adios.

On commenting on the sale of Tamar Ridge vineyard to Brown Brothers, Greens Senate Candidate and Tamar Valley wine grower Peter Whish-Wilson today said he welcomed a new investor to the Tamar Valley, and hoped Brown Brothers had done a full due diligence on the potential risks posed by Gunn’s Ltd’s proposed Pulp Mill to their new wine assets.

“The simple fact is that since Gunn’s abandoned due process and pulled out of the RPDC assessment in 2006 no one has ever conducted a rigorous, independent study of the proposed pulp mill’s likely impact on tourism and wine sales in the area.”

Mr Whish-Wilson said he assumed Brown Brothers had done such a study, and hoped they would be willing to share both the results and scope of such a study with other concerned wine growers in the area, who had been pursuing their own study since 2006.

“For several years now the Tamar Valley has suffered from significant uncertainty and low business investment due to Gunn’s Ltd’s decision to abandon due process when they left the independent RPDC process.

“The current set of operating permits for the pulp mill are not good enough. For example it is totally unacceptable that there are no strict, legally enforceable limits on mill emissions such as foul odours, or no “shut down” clauses for the pulp mill if local residents and business owners are affected by such foul odours.”

Mr Whish-Wilson said he hoped Brown Brothers would listen to and take seriously small grower concerns in the Valley , and help lobby government for a new set of pulp mill operating permits.

Mr Whish-Wilson was one of three litigants from the Tamar Valley who unsuccessfully challenged the Pulp Mill Assessment Act in the Supreme Court in 2008.

Gunns says the next phase of the restructure will include ‘closure’ of the pulp mill project. (ABC News)

The timber company Gunns says it will now focus on securing finance for its northern Tasmanian pulp mill after selling most of its non-core assets.

Gunns announced in February that it was selling the assets to attract investment in the mill and yesterday revealed the sale of its Tamar Ridge winery.

It has already sold its Tasmanian hardware stores and native forest estate.

Gunns Chief Executive Greg L’Estrange says the $32 million sale of the winery to Brown Brothers will allow the company to move to the next phase of its restructure.

“We’re targeting just improving our businesses as we go forward. We have a lot of work to do over the coming 12 months to continue to develop our asset base and the next stage of development which will be the closure of the pulp mill project,” he said.

Financial Analyst Tony Gray the company has been looking for quick sales.

“There has been a real loss to shareholders over time through these investments.”

“On the one hand directors could have waited longer to try and get those dollars in or get more dollars in for those assets but I think that they realise with the way financial markets are, and credit markets, and knowing there had been repayments they’ve bitten the bullet to get rid of these assets quickly,” Mr Gray said.

Investors were unmoved by Gunns’ profit result yesterday with the share price opening and closing at 61 cents.

The company posted a $28 million profit after tax for the financial year, down $24 million on the previous 12 months.

Keep writing this stuff John, and the bovver boys will be on the sniff….

Posted by Dave Groves on 16/08/10 at 05:27 AM

Dr Amos has great expertise, in the field of smoke and mirrors.

Posted by salamander on 16/08/10 at 07:55 AM

Thankyou again John, I pointed out some of the stupidity of the FFIC New Forest Industry Plan at Gunns Pre assessment meeting in Launceston. Only to be accosted by one of their heads because I only mentioned the facts that they planned to almost double the logging in Tasmania by 2020 and that for an industry with no market that was just ridiculous. I was told that I mis represented the Great Plan because I didn’t mention the wonderful social benefits. I guessed that meant the banks getting their hands on the logging machinery that they have so coveted for many years. And a massive increase in Centrelink payments coming into Tasmania.

The conclusion is that the tax office should no longer issue rulings on MIS, and the courts could adjudicate on any legal opinions put forward by the promotors, which are contested by the tax office.

It is foreseen that the consequent lack of trust by the MIS tax punters in the MIS promotors and their associates / advisers, would stop further MIS plantings.

No further MIS plantings means no pulp mill in the tamar valley

SIMPLE.

Posted by mike seabrook on 16/08/10 at 11:56 AM

I find it quite amusing all this rhetoric about how subsidised the forestry industry is. A lot of posters on here seem to be quite ignorant of the facts surrounding industry (of any kind) subsidies from government.

The following comes from a report into ‘Assessing direct Government subsidies paid into Tasmanian industries.’, May 2009.

Across the time period, 2004-08 industry subsidies were (per year):
Energy sector: $6.13 million
Mining: $10.94 million
Forestry and timber processing: $25.24 million
Agriculture and fishing: $50.50 million
Tourism: $92.30 million

Figures from 2006/2007 for the amount of value added in each industry sector to the Tasmanian economy.
Energy sector: $918 million
Mining: $1,892 million
Forestry and timber processing: $1,408 million
Agriculture and fishing: $1,190 million
Tourism: $1,430 million

From those figures it can be seen that the forest industry comes in third for value added per dollar of subsidy.
Mining: $167 contributed to the economy per dollar of subsidy.
Energy: $150 contributed to the economy per dollar of subsidy.
Forestry and timber processing: $56 contributed to the economy per dollar of subsidy.
Agriculture and fishing: $24 contributed to the economy per dollar of subsidy.
Tourism: $15 contributed to the economy per dollar of subsidy.

This clearly shows that the forest industry isn’t as subsidised as the agriculture and tourism sectors. The continued claims that the forest industry shouldn’t be subsidised should apply to all industries operating in Tasmania, rather than singling out individual sectors.

It is interesting to hear the constant claims that The Greens (and some others on the site) make that tourism is the way forward in Tasmania, and the reality is that it is the most subsidised industry and contributes a just over a quarter of the return on subsidies that the forest industry achieves, $15 vs. $56 respectively.

Posted by Michael on 16/08/10 at 12:45 PM

So, now that Gunns has sold just about the last thing worth anything in their asset portfolio, they are going to focus on their core plantation and processing business.

And after dropping further from a forecast $50-60million profit to a paltry actual of $28million, just who exactly is buying the product from this ‘core business’?

Gunns is a basket case and the shareholders should be asking WTF is going on?

It is however reassuring that Brown Brothers (a family business with a much longer and more profitable history than Gunns) can see a future in Tamar Valley wines because there wouldn’t be one if Gunns were actually able to build a pulp mill there, and I doubt Brown Brothers would have bought Tamar Ridge if there was the slightest chance of it.

Thank you for your vote of confidence, Brown Brothers.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 16/08/10 at 02:05 PM

Lets see how the GNS share price goes now.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 16/08/10 at 02:07 PM

Gunns, having sold Tamar Valley for $32 million have declared a company profit of $28 million.

This means that without that sale, the company produced a loss $4 million!

How much were the subsidies this last year?

It gives investors in timber and pulp mills so much confidence when you’re out shopping for $2.5 billion plus!

Posted by Observer on 16/08/10 at 03:40 PM

Actually, #7, Gunns share price has risen from 61 to 63 cents - not much, granted, but a rise nonetheless.

Re#5, Michael, the Greens blather on about tourism everywhere and not just Tasmania, particularly in relation to attracting tourists to (old growth) forested areas eg East Gippsland and yes, Tasmania, but conveniently ignore that there is a strong seasonal factor, that many of the jobs in tourism are poorly paid, and that a lot of the profits are collected at the origin and not the destination. Tourism is also affected, like just about everything else, by economic downturns. Perhaps we should ask why it is so heavily subsidized? Might have something to do with the political pressure exerted by the Greens?

Dr Barry Tomkins

Posted by DR Barry Tomkins on 16/08/10 at 03:46 PM

Barry Tomkins may be right that many of the jobs in Tourism are lowly paid, but he failed to point out that it also applies to the timber industry as well. Sawmill workers are traditionally among the lowest paid of all workers, as for the contractors they can’t get much either if they need $1 million per week to keep going.
The solution to our forest industry is to market our strenghts which are our beautiful timbers.
We need to stop immediately the unsustainable,subsidy driven industry of woodchipping and take a step towards true value adding. With proper marketing our timbers would be prized worldwide especially if they were FSC certified and logged on a real sustainable basis.
My idea of sustainable is that the size of the logs should not decrease rapidly as the years go on. I would love to be able to drive around the state and be able to see forestry done on an ecologically sustainable basis. With workers trained to appreciate the diversity of products that can be produced from our timbers and being paid well for their caring role as Foresters.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 16/08/10 at 06:07 PM

Re #9
A little early yet don’t you think, Barry? I doubt anyone watches the GNS share price closer than those here.

And it was 61.5 at close, not 63, so it’s down .5 so far, Barry.

I also doubt any tourism operator or guide would work for the equivalent of $2.50 tonne that your work-for-the-dole ‘foresters’ get. They have a minimum wage in the Tourism sector, where your ‘foresters’ are screwed by contract.

And of course profits are collected at the origin, not the destination, that’s business. Don’t you pay for your groceries, car, TV, etc. before you leave the shop? I certainly don’t send anything off before I’m paid.

And prey tell, how is Tourism heavily subsidised?

Posted by Russell Langfield on 16/08/10 at 06:17 PM

Michael (#5) I think your judgment has deserted you a little on this occasion.

On p 52 of the report you use, “(t)he Tasmanian Government also funds the TT Line operation and in 2006 committed $115 million over three years to secure the Bass Strait ferry system’s future…….the average payment per year is $38 million. This sum is included (as a subsidy) for tourism.”

But forestry infrastructure was treated in the completely opposite manner. On p 12 it was stated that “forestry roads bestow benefits for both public and private industry users and the separation of these benefits is a complex task given that roads and bridges serve multiple uses”. Government assistance for forestry infrastructure was disregarded.

But don’t the ferries bestow multiple benefits?

On the question of concessional wood prices, regardless of whether it’s regarded as good or bad, everyone, even the report you use, regards it as a form of industry assistance. But it wasn’t included because of the lack of data. FT commissioned a study to compare assistance across industries then refused to part with relevant data because it was commercial in confidence.

And of course the measure of forest subsidies doesn’t include MISs. This is quite misleading. Direct subsidies and tax expenditures all form part of industry assistance.

So the report you use, a report commissioned by FT, understates forestry’s subsidy and overstates that received by the tourist industry.

Not that I disagree with your contention that the tourism is over subsidised. I have previously posted on TT to this effect.

But you’re deluding yourself if you think forestry is under subsidised because some report on FT’s website said so.

Posted by john lawrence on 16/08/10 at 06:39 PM

Another breath of fresh air from John Lawrence to blow away the smoke and stench of forestry bullshit.

Posted by Mike Bolan on 16/08/10 at 06:43 PM

#8 Observer - looks like it’s back to school for you!

On what basis do you assume the sale price impacts 100% on profit?

Regardless the announced profit “after tax” relates to 09-10 yet the sale is effective in 10-11.

Posted by Sam on 16/08/10 at 07:20 PM

brown bros bought the gunns wine business

wonder what warranties and guarantees were given by gunns re vineyards affected by pollution from the pulp mill, and pollution from gunns and their forestry mates smoke from forest burns.

Posted by mike seabrook on 16/08/10 at 09:24 PM

#15. mike seabrook.
This guarantee you speak of may be covered within the terms of the PMAA ‘section 11’ I would have thought?
Good for Gunns Ltd, though quite toxic for Brown Bro’s if the Stink Mill eventually gets-up.

#12 – The main benefit of the ferries is the facilitation of auto travel (tourism) between Tasmania and Victoria. Along with it is a minimal amount of freight. I see this as being quite reasonable as being counted as a tourism cost, as stated in the report.

Forestry roads, on the other hand, are built either by Forestry Tasmania or private industry. The priority focus of these roads is the access and subsequent cartage of timber from the forest. This use benefits the forest industry, but also these roads are used by the public for a host of different activities from car club rallies, recreational motorcycle riding, four-wheel driving, general site-seeing, access for firewood, access for apiarists, access for mining exploration, access to bushwalking tracks, access for fishing/hunting etc, the list could go on. From this it isn’t unreasonable for the authors not to attempt to split this up into individual sections/benefits to individual industries.

I see no mention of wood prices, where is this you are referring to?

Please read page 12 for the authors reasoning of not including: “Tax concessions or other forms of favourable tax treatment are not included because they are not necessarily paid to the industry directly or indirectly.” In the case of MIS the investor gets a tax concession not the industry. Therefore, rightly, it isn’t included.

Posted by Michael on 17/08/10 at 12:33 AM

#17.
Forestry roads (many of them) have bloody great big gates locking those who are not forest workers out of the forests. Unless one manages to design a gate jumping car they are single use roads and should be included in the calcs.
MIS benefits the forest company because they don’t have to stump up the money for the land the so called investor does it for them. So it should be included.
This study that is being referred to sounds pretty lopsided, it must be the BANG FOR BUCK study that was seriously flawed.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 17/08/10 at 08:16 AM

Dear Michael, how do you explain all the locked off access to the forestry roads down our way on the West Coast, are these soon to be forestry toll-roads or just to keep out people and their vehicles?

Same goes for the Tarkine region.

Q. When is a forestry road exclusive for forestry only?
A. Each time you encounter a heavy duty locked steel gate.

Posted by William Boeder on 17/08/10 at 08:21 AM

9# Its a good question you ask Dr Barry. I’m not sure how “heavily” subsidised the tourism industry is in the first place but I plan to look into.
As to WHY the tourism industry might be subsidised ..the answer is pretty clear to me.

Tourism attracted nearly 900,000 visitors to the state in 2009, we are hoping for 1 million in 2010.
Each of these tourists comes to see our beautiful island and sample our produce, but they do more than that. They spend money in restaurants, chemists, clothes shops, accomodation, supermarkets, specialty stores etc. How much do they spend Barry per annum on Tassies economy Barry ? A good question for YOU to look into.
(hint- the calculation of the economic multiplier effects of just AFL tourism in the north might be a useful place to start !)

Importantly, many of these people come because we are a tourist destination,but they decide to relocate to live here, invest their savings and build our islands population/economic base. Tourism is the best advertisment for Tasmania and our life style, and the government has leveraged of this fact in recent demographic campaigns (eg Northern Tasmanian Development).

Another question for you to then look into Barry -what percentage of tourists come back to live in Tassie ?

Its good to have this debate finally. I’m not sure how the Greens fit into all of this (which I’ll look into) but I suspect your comment on tourism subsidiies being a Green policy is wrong- (and just the usual anti Green mantra used when you dont have much thats constructive to say).

And a fit lad like yourself can still go for a walk or put a bike over and go for a pedal. Mrs Boeder, at least, will thank me for this suggestion.

Posted by hugoagogo on 17/08/10 at 10:43 AM

#18 & #19 - Motorcycles, 4wds, bicycles and pedestrians can easily bypass the gates, and they frequently do. Apiarists and others are provided with keys to access the forest.

It is impossible to separate which roads got allocated funding through subsidies or not, regardless of whether gates are in place or not.

Pete, what you’re saying is that all public road infrastructure built by the government (freeways bypasses etc) should be included as all industries benefit from it. This cannot be counted because it doesn’t soley benefit one industry alone, and therefore isn’t an industry specific subsidy. Please state how the ferry subsidy benefits the forest industry?

Again, MIS shouldn’t be counted as the investor is given tax concessions not the industry. Having persons invest in an industry isn’t a subsidy. Read the authors explaination of this on page 12.

Posted by Michael on 17/08/10 at 12:26 PM

Michael(#17) you don’t give ground easily.

The orthodox view of the sea lane between Tasmania and Melbourne is that it is our ‘Hume Highway’. I’m led to believe that Tasmanians use ferries to travel north and subsequently return. Yet the full cost of ferries is assigned to the Tasmanian tourism industry. And you think that is reasonable? Maybe the marginal costs of providing for visitors but not the full cost surely?

Maybe you don’t understand the difference between legal incidence and economic incidence. The question should be who receives the economic benefit, not who is the actual legal recipient of the tax benefit. The apparent difficulties of the industry with the decline of MISs must surely suggest that the industry benefited?

Therefore the MIS tax expenditures are a form of industry subsidy, by definition. If you wish to take a contrary view as to what constitutes a subsidy, different from the conventional view, the view of the Productivity Commission for instance, that’s fine, but don’t try to pass it off as a fact as you did in your opening remarks at #5.

Posted by john lawrence on 17/08/10 at 01:05 PM

Re #17
‘Forestry Tasmania roads’ were paid for by us, so they are definitely a tax-payer subsidy, yet they are mostly locked to keep the public out.

You obviously haven’t been on the ferry much otherwise you’d see there was a hell of a lot more freight going across than you think. You’d also know that most of the so-called ‘tourist vehicles’ have Tasmanian registrations. Mainlanders and overseas tourists mostly come via plane because it’s cheaper, quicker and more comfortable.

Re #21 $ #22
And if one is caught beyond one of these gates? I note the signs say no-one is allowed past, even though it is public land.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 17/08/10 at 02:07 PM

Brown Brothers has a very good name. Their reds are a favourite in this family.
They certainly risk losing customers if that pulp mill goes ahead.
Loved the label #16.

Posted by Heather Donaldson on 17/08/10 at 04:52 PM

#24

I once got met by a security guy on my way out of a locked area, and he was fine as I’d been fishing. Got a nice five pounder too.

Woulda been different if I’d been sanding diesel tanks, spiking trees, or weaving tapestries.

Posted by hugoagogo on 17/08/10 at 05:25 PM

Re #26
How sweet, hugo. Camping were we?

Posted by Russell Langfield on 17/08/10 at 06:40 PM

#21. Mr Hugo Agogo.
Thank you for your comments though if they were stretched a bit might indicate that I indulge in a bit of suspended eco weaving tapestry.
Alas, my aerial suspension days are well past me nowadays.

Can I suggest that your pro-forestry mate Michael, (comment 22) whom may not have visited this West Coast area in any recent time, that his advices claiming the average 4WD vehicle can zip through the chink between either ‘the large clinker rocks or enormous tree stumps’ located in very close proximity to the concrete buttressed steel gate posts, is incorrect?

Perhaps a skinny undernourished Quad-Bike type of contrivance, as driven by 5-6 year olds may navigate between the above described blocked off and gated roads, certainly not much more?

As for Mrs Boeder, (bless her sweet and tender heart,) she suggests that all the E.Nitens plantations fouling this region should all be converted to strawberry plantations.
She goes on to say that that this would at least generate a greater amount of profit than the growing of wasteful volumes of delicate slender stems of chemically enhanced E. Nitens.
Furthermore she says this would also save such as the over zealous insane activity of napalming the bulldozed remnant timber heaps.

Posted by William Boeder on 17/08/10 at 07:37 PM

re 26 - that five pounder - was it the tasmanian fox - there is a reward out.

Posted by mike seabrook on 17/08/10 at 08:46 PM

#19,28 William Boeder

Large gates: When working in Tassie I was involved in managing several Central Highlands private properties near Bronte Park owned by Forest Resources, and then Boral - which were subsequently taken over by Gunns after I had left.

These are the same properties which I believe were recently purchased by Jan Cameron to turn into conservation/carbon parks.

We had to erect very strong gates with associated earthworks and boulders specifically to keep out illegal firewood cutters from the West Coast who were at various times removing reportedly up to 100 tonnes per weekend in 5-tonne truck loads and obviously making a nice little earner at the expense of the property owners.

Even with the gates it was hard to keep them out, and at one time we did a patrol with the police in an effort to catch them, as it could be dangerous to approach them on your own. They were an ongoing problem, and presumably still are, or soon will be now that Gunns are no longer actively managing these properties.

Upon hearing of Ms Cameron’s recent purchase of these properties, myself and former colleagues had a little chuckle at the thought that she probably doesn’t really know the trouble that she’s let herself in for!

These were private properties adjoining the Marlborough Hwy, but it would be unsurprising if many people driving past those gates mistook them for preventing access to public lands. Anyway, there are several reasons why gates may need to be erected.

Posted by Mark Poynter on 17/08/10 at 10:00 PM

Re #30
If you lot were reasonable and let the community in to clean up what you trashed and get some firewood from what’s left instead of locking it up and napalming the lot you wouldn’t need to install these gates would you?

But no, your mentality is such that “it’s ours, all ours, and whatever we can’t use we’ll lock away and burn so no-one else can have it.”

Instead, the firewood collectors are now into the CARs, yet you sit there and have your “little chuckle.”

Posted by Russell Langfield on 18/08/10 at 06:48 AM

Anyway, there are several reasons why gates may need to be erected” and the primary reason is for “preventing access to public lands”.

Posted by JohnWade on 18/08/10 at 07:51 AM

Yeah, Mr Poynter - build gates to keep out firewood hookers and prevent them from earning a living by cutting, splitting, carting and selling FT’s waste for people to keep warm so that FT can burn it uselessly every still autumn day to choke the living breath out of the population instead.

Forestry - intelligence personified.

Posted by amyb on 18/08/10 at 09:07 AM

#23 - No, I don’t. I find that once you let the fish off the hook, it won’t get back on…

MIS can equally be compared to the ferry subsidies, as providing multiple benefits. You state “I’m led to believe that Tasmanians use ferries to travel north and subsequently return.” – Both Tasmanian tourism and other tourism on the mainland states benefit from the ferry, as you state. Please tell me what Tasmanian industry benefits from having Tasmanians visit other states? Hence, the money provided by the Tasmanian government is for the Tasmanian tourism industry, they aren’t funding Victoria’s are they?

More than one industry benefits from MIS schemes as well. Firstly the investors get the benefit of a tax concession, industry benefits from increased investment, then subsequent service industries (mechanical maintenance, food services, fuel outlets etc) all benefit from increased economic activity generated from the initial subsidy provided to investors.

From this should the MIS subsidy, provided to investors, be allocated evenly to the agriculture, mining, energy, forestry and all other industries? No, in my opinion it should be allocated against the initial benefactor, which in MIS case it is the investors, not the forest industry.

#31 – Again, Russell, you are showing a very selfish point of view. Expecting private landowners to just give up a resource to others is disgraceful.

Posted by Michael on 18/08/10 at 10:22 AM

#31,33

So, lets get this straight .... you support commercial firewood merchants (not wood hookers collecting for their own use) stealing firewood from private properties ... they are therefore not controlled, they can fell trees and damage vegetation, and damage roads, etc.

So, unless you are hypocrites, you will also support them stealing wood from the same properties that are now owned by Jan Cameron as conservation and carbon reserves. No? Well I guess you are hypocrites.

Posted by Mark Poynter on 18/08/10 at 11:44 AM

Having had open-gate access to recently harvested old growth coups carrying the requisite firewood licence, (by recent I mean some 3 years ago, just immediately after the forestry mob had bulldozed the intact large trees ready for the torch in Autumn,) the species were mostly Myrtle and all those other types unsuited for woodchips.

I do ask the pro-forestry push not to deny this activity, for at the time holders of firewood tickets could access these huge heaps for their domestic heating wood?

Though tis well known the Brotherhood would rather torch the whole lot so to remove the evidence of just how huge an amount of waste occurs during their predations upon Old Growth, Regrowth, Ancient Forest, Timber Reserves etc.

Yes the gates are put in place for a specific reason, primarily to keep people out of the forest war zones.
The little chuckles that you enjoyed here Mark are essentially another indication of the righteous indignation so commonly held by the corporate forestry industry wood-hookers and destroyers.

Those poor blighters that try and make a few bucks from firewood, (before your crowd torch can the lot, seems to anger the Brotherhood,)
They dearly want to see the entire remainder of this remnant timber burnt to ashes ASAP.

Such are Tasmania’s supposed Worlds Best Practices?
They they don’t appear much different to the Indonesion methods of forestry, other than here it is to see the mighty entities beg for and to receive millions in taxpayer subsidy to carry out the very same destructive purposes for merely harvesting miserable wood-chips.

I can already envisage the raised pens of the pro-forestry crowd ready to deny that of which my observations have confirmed.

Posted by William Boeder on 18/08/10 at 12:27 PM

Michael(#34) at least you now acknowledge that it’s just your ‘opinion’, and is no longer a ‘fact’.

Posted by john lawrence on 18/08/10 at 12:39 PM

What a lot of people haven’t realized is that the present doom laden situation in todays Tasmanian Forestry Industry leads back to the architected blue-print for Tasmania’s forestry operations by the likes of John Gay and Robin Gray, with perhaps supportive views by the government ministers back in the beginnings of the Pulp-Mill fanciful talks?
Were there have been properly re-generated regrowth forests, less of the slash and burn to clear-fell areas making way for PULP-Mill logs the Entire State and its industry would all the better be?

So due to the complicit manner of the hows, the whys and the support mechanisms that were locked into place by the likes of David Llewellyn, Paul Lennon and Bryan Green, we have this present fizzling of that grand vision forecasted by gray and gay of gunns Ltd.

As for the present forestry industry councils, authorities, then along with all the pro wood-chip associations and such, even FIAT, the whole lot were like the clinging clicking knobbly-bits attached to the rear ends of non-crutched sheep.

As so stated, these grouped bodies were merely hangers on to whatever could be clung to so they might make loud pro-industry noises.
Not that those noises were of any import to Tasmania generally, more usually just a means of support in the attempt to try and make the huge number of industry wrongs convertible to forestry rights, a rather slippery means of legitimising themselves where there dwelt no true legitimate basis.

I still believe it would further Tasmania’s interests to have the abundance of all the now unemployed forestry work forces, to become involved in the construction of wind turbines along the West Coast of Tasmania?
Better this than to pour countless millions into an industry that gives wealth to only a miniscule number of individuals, and does not really support Tasmania’s Treasury to any noticeable extent.
Forestry Tasmania has the equipment and could soon engage the work forces so needed.

I did once propose this means as an alternative to Bryan Green MP but he defended his fervent dreams of a mighty roaring timber industry, (a mere pipe dream,) that would dominate the entire island.
This bloke Bryan Green, is certainly no man of sensible vision to the futures of Tasmania.

William Boeder.

Posted by William Boeder on 18/08/10 at 01:46 PM

See, Poynter, (#35) you’re so wrapped up in hating anyone who disagrees with your 19th Century mindset on forestry that you don’t even read what’s being written.

The gates that were being referred to were FT gates across taxpayer paid for roads in publicly owned forests, and dealt with the locking out of public from their own forests and access to their own resource by a belligerent FT who would rather burn their excessive waste needlessly and wastefully than allow some people earn a living collecting and selling it so that other people can use it to keep warm.

They were not some obscure gates across private roads into private property of the type that you mentioned.

Posted by amyb on 18/08/10 at 05:35 PM

Re #34
“No, I don’t. I find that once you let the fish off the hook, it won’t get back on…”

Gee, I wonder why they waste their times tagging fish then? Obviously another activity you’ve never actually done.

“Again, Russell, you are showing a very selfish point of view. Expecting private landowners to just give up a resource to others is disgraceful.”

I agree, I think giving up our publicly owned forests to FT and Gunns IS disgraceful.

Re #35
What a twist of words. You guys pile up thousands of tonnes of very usable wood and just open-air burn it rather than let the community put it to a more worthwhile use. That’s how it is, Mark, got it straight now?

Posted by Russell Langfield on 18/08/10 at 06:06 PM

#39 amyb

You said: “See, Poynter, (#35) you’re so wrapped up in hating anyone who disagrees with your 19th Century mindset on forestry that you don’t even read what’s being written”

Why are you shouting? If there is one thing I’ve learnt since occassionally participating in discussions on this and other online sites, it is that many people have an incredible ability to accuse others of things, such as being hateful in this instance, while excusing their own far worse behavior.

Perhaps Ms Amy, you should go back and read my original post about gates (#30). I was merely providing an example, from my experience, of another reason why gates may be necessary, and flagging the possibility that some people may see gates leading into privately-owned forests and mistake them for public lands. How is this hateful and a 19th century mindset? Please explain.

Posted by Mark Poynter on 19/08/10 at 08:37 AM

#39 - Amy, you have a very wrong understanding of what ‘public land’ is. It isn’t own by you or me, it is owned by the government. The government is elected by the public, hence the term.

The government manages public assets for the public, not because the public owns them. The government then allocates any returns from public assets, towards other public initiatives and assets. For example, any return made from mining and forestry royalties can be allocated to health funding or major transport infrastructure.

To suggest, as you do, that someone can illegally cut firewood from state forest demonstrates your lack of understanding of the ownership of public lands.

You are suggesting it is fine for someone to illegally procure a resource from the government, and sell it for their own individual benefit. This is called theft. I’m sorry to say, but it is you Amy that is stuck in the 19th century. Please gain a better understanding of how governments work and then perhaps you can comment from a more informed point of view.

To reiterate my point, the government owns the land, not each individual person. What returns the government makes from public assets is then used to fund other projects/initiatives that benefit the public.

Posted by Michael on 19/08/10 at 10:02 AM

Michael, I hope you’re on a Rostered Day Off. I’m sure even the flexible working hours at FT prohibit starting later than 10am, and according to your last post, at 10.02 you were still chatting away online.

Back to work, buster, sharpening Bob’s pencils, or whatever you do there.

I don’t pay my taxes so bludgers like you and your cronies can chat away all day

Posted by Candida Doyle on 19/08/10 at 10:23 AM

#43 - Ignoring the points I’ve raised and jumping straight into personal attacks and slurs, especially when you know nothing of my employment status, shows an inability to coherently and rationally formulate a counter-argument.

Feel free to continue in this manner, it only serves to make you look silly, not me.

Posted by Michael on 19/08/10 at 04:37 PM

Re #42
The government represents “us,” so yes “we” do own them, not the government. The government keeps changing, the public ownership doesn’t, without a referendum or being stolen.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 19/08/10 at 05:51 PM

#45 - No, Russell, the government still owns the land, regardless of what political party is in power at the time.

Posted by Michael on 20/08/10 at 01:04 PM

Re #45
Laughably naive.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 20/08/10 at 01:47 PM

No 47; Russel, you’re getting rather circular when you’re criticising your own posts…

Posted by hugoagogo on 20/08/10 at 07:12 PM

yeh but hugo, do you think the guvenment ‘owns’ the land?

Posted by a bit straighter on 20/08/10 at 11:08 PM

The term Crown land springs forward in the mind, also, I have never heard the expression that this land belongs to either the Libs or the Labs?

Ostensibly, the Commonwealth Monarch is the owner of what has been cheekily termed as the government land.
This delinquent manner of reference in describing Crown Lands, is ‘that of which the government has appropriated to serve themselves and or their non-political mates.
How else do you think Gunns Ltd could become such vast land-holders of what was previously Crown Lands?
Twould be interesting to read of the amount of the consideration paid by Gunns Ltd, in having their name appearing on the various land titles?
Then to identify whom this then presumed Gunns Ltd land was purchased from originally?

#48. Mr Hugo Agogo, where is thy sting in your comments, are you now practicing for the saint-hood, or some other higher religious calling?

Posted by William Boeder on 21/08/10 at 09:08 AM

Lol, thanks for that Hugo, obviously should have been #46.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 21/08/10 at 06:36 PM

#42. ‘You are suggesting it is fine for someone to illegally procure a resource from the government, and sell it for their own individual benefit. This is called theft.’ .... Michael

What do you call it when 100 000 hectares of prime forest, including the timber on it suddenly and unaccountably disappear off the national inventory?

What do you call it when Gunns announce that they manage over 300 000 hectares of forests, and the Government has also given them all the access roads to the forestry coupes, making them private property.

What do call it when the public are sued for tresspass when entering so-called public land.

What do you call it when forest contractors assualt protestors on public land?

What do you call it when land is compulsory purchased with public money for roads and then handed over to Gunns for pipelines?

What do you call it when forestry decides to clearfell and burn areas next to National Parks, World Heritage areas and other iconic tourist areas?

What do you call it when timber workers are paid $1.20 per tonne for dressing logs for sale below cost whereas firewood sells for over $100 per tonne?

What do you call it when 100,000 hectares of prime forest, including the timber on it suddenly and unaccountably disappear off the national inventory? – I’d call it wishful thinking on your behalf.

What do you call it when Gunns announce that they manage over 300 000 hectares of forests, and the Government has also given them all the access roads to the forestry coupes, making them private property. – What is wrong with private industry managing public assets, the taxpayer isn’t paying for the maintenance of those roads anymore. It doesn’t make them ‘private property’ as you state, it just specifies which body is responsible for maintenance and construction etc.

What do call it when the public are sued for tresspass (sic) when entering so-called public land. – I would call it trespass.

What do you call it when forest contractors assualt (sic) protestors on public land? – I would agree with the courts decision on this matter.

What do you call it when land is compulsory purchased with public money for roads and then handed over to Gunns for pipelines? – Where? Claims of corruption are unfounded.

What do you call it when forestry decides to clearfell and burn areas next to National Parks, World Heritage areas and other iconic tourist areas? – I’d call it native forest harvesting for timber production. So what if it is ‘next door’ it isn’t in National Parks etc.

What do you call it when timber workers are paid $1.20 per tonne for dressing logs for sale below cost whereas firewood sells for over $100 per tonne? – I’d say you have no idea of what you’re talking about. Timber workers aren’t paid $1.20 per tonne, the principal is paid that. The workers are paid (on the whole) an hourly rate, like many other employees. The principal gets that extra on top of their normal harvest rate.
Comparing firewood production to timber production shows a lack of understanding of the different processes involved. Firewood production is much more labour intensive and production is of a lower volume product, hence why it sells for a higher price.

I’d say the timber workers get even less then because the employer has to make a buck first otherwise there are no employees. As you’d say, Business 101.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 25/08/10 at 01:39 PM

Re # 54 Russell,

I believe you are mistaken. The principal gets paid an additional $1.20 per tonne on top of their harvesting rates. The employee will be paid an hourly rate. That rate remains the same no matter what product the employee is working with. It’s an hourly rate. The principal is paid the additional $1.20 per tonne to make up for the lost productivity of having a worker gangnailing peelers.

Posted by Roger on 25/08/10 at 03:19 PM

#54 - Regardless of whether the principal is being paid extra for peelers, the workers on the ground are still being paid their normal hourly rate.

Posted by Michael on 25/08/10 at 03:20 PM

#53. Thank you Michael for you all-revealing answer to my comments. The two typos I agree with - the rest is typical forestry spin. Worthless junk as far as I am concerned.

One possible error that I made is that the ‘gift’ of 100 000 hectares of public forest to Gunns was probably understated. I have heard that it was as much as 175 000 hectares!? Try reading Hansard for confirmation!

How strange that you do not know where this compulsory purchased land is that has been handed over to Gunns for a pipeline. Ever heard of Dilston? Everybody else in Tasmania seems to have done.

It IS corruption, you know, however sweetly you try to present it.

What do you call it when forestry decides to clearfell and burn areas next to National Parks, World Heritage areas and other iconic tourist areas? – I’d call it native forest harvesting for timber production. So what if it is ‘next door’ it isn’t in National Parks etc.
I’d call it iconoclasm and old growth logging for low-cost woodchips, deliberately targetted to dissuade tourism.

But then, the first comment in this article is probably the most apposite : #1.The forest industry turd polishers have their work cut out for them….

If you really want to know what is wrong, click on the following site and then highlight Australia

#21 Oh, really Hugo, you are a tad pedestrian at times. I recall encountering several locked gates on the Upper Derwent River, blocking off access to forests containing some of the world’s tallest trees back in the 1980s, because they were earmarked for logging and the powers that be did not want a public outcry. At the time, Robin Gray and his boys were screaming out about the greenies “locking up” the State; the irony did not escape some. You fellows are gonna run out of steam soon.

Posted by No vested interest on 25/08/10 at 08:37 PM

Re #55
I believe you don’t understand or don’t want to say who the ‘timber workers’ are given these menial tasks for which they won’t be paid any extra while the contractors pocket the measly lot at the workers’ expense.

They are in fact work-for-the-dole slave-labour participants, so they get nothing extra except extra crap work.

If the timber industry was to collapse, as it should be allowed, the only extra people at Centrelink will be the free-loading contractors and bludging paper shufflers and it would be by far cheaper for us this way.

No more handouts to forest industry free-loading bludgers.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 26/08/10 at 06:44 AM

#57 - If you’re so confident that corruption has taken place, take your case to the police as any concerned citizen should. Be prepared to be laughed at though…

Wow, a link that has nothing to do with the forest industry, just a simulation of birth and death rates and carbon dioxide emissions. So revealing… Ohhhh, ooggaa booggaa…

#59 - Russell, it is plain to see that again your arguments are incorrect, this is getting quite repetitious. The employee gets paid X amount per hour, say he works a 50 hr week, so per week he gets paid 50X.

Then the contractor is asked to produce a product that requires some work involving gang-nailing and presenting logs, the employee still works 50 hours for X dollars an hour, resulting in the employee earning, this will be surprising to you, 50X dollars per week.

Posted by Michael on 26/08/10 at 12:08 PM

Re #60
Yawn. Your work-for-the-dole employees get sweet fa.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 26/08/10 at 06:01 PM

The persons whom are constant in their support of Forestry Tasmania and all its operations, are people whom are turning a blind eye to the deceptive and secretive activities that go in with this government GBE.

The recent challenge by F/T ‘against’ a ruling given by the State’s Ombudsmen, was to prevent the publication of the public money spent by F/T on a televised series of forestry industry propaganda programs.

This being so done to promote their relentless trashing of the people’s forests by F/T to serve the parasitic operations of Gunns Ltd, in their converting Tasmania’s forests to measly cheap wood-chips, so done to create substantial incomes and benefits to a select few number of greed infected individuals.
I would also like to add: that the humble taxpayer people should give thought to the massive amount of money, (somewhere in the region of $767 million dollars,) that this industry has sucked in from the government during its last 10 years of activity.
Sad to say but this is oft’ referred to as our sustainable Tasmanian Forestry Industry!

Posted by William Boeder on 28/08/10 at 07:39 PM

Re # 61 Russell.
I don’t know of any work for the dole people working in the forestry industry. Please tell me where they are working and what jobs they are doing. It won’t be on a harvesting crew where the gang nailing is required as you need to be a qualified log classification officer to do that.

Re # 59 Russell
They get paid to do their job, menial tasks or not that is their job and they get paid a fair wage. Nobody likes every part of their job or they wouldn’t have to be paid. But gang nailing logs is part of their job.

Posted by Roger on 30/08/10 at 03:37 PM

Re #63
No you wouldn’t would you, Roger…

However, one example of work-for-the-dole participants being used in forestry operations is being employed by the Mersey Natural Resource Management company. I know because I went for a job there a while ago as a site supervisor, and guess what sort of people I was to supervise and for what purpose?

And I bet a ‘log classifier’ won’t be down on his knees gang-nailing.

A fair wage is NOT work-for-the-dole rates. That’s slave labour.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 30/08/10 at 05:16 PM

Re # 64 Russell,

Russell the Mersey Natural Resource Management company in an environmental consulting company. NOT a forestry company. “The Mersey NRM is a non-profit, community-based, Incorporated Association established in 2000 to undertake works of an environmental nature across Northern
Tasmania”.

The work for the dole people you are referring to would hardly be managing and operating a commercial logging operation.

If you don’t like work for the dole rates take it up with your Federal member as it is a federal politics issue not a forestry debate.

Log Classification Officers do gang nail logs.

Posted by Roger on 31/08/10 at 04:47 PM

#64 - Sorry Russell, wrong again! The Mersey NRM Group isn’t a forestry company and certainly doesn’t participate in commercial forestry activities where log grading would be required (the actual topic being discussed you know). They are a non-profit organisation, conducting landcare type work activities, such as revegetation works, and weed control on council parks and reserves, throughout the North of Tasmania.

Posted by Michael on 31/08/10 at 04:56 PM

Re #65 & #66
Sorry

Try “Community Success The Mersey Natural Resource Management Group started as a community response to save their local river. From initial government funding it has grown to be a successful business involving a Job Placement Agency, commercial weeding and spraying, Work For The Dole teams and Forestry Teams, all of which service most of northern Tasmania.”

And here’s another example of another Resource Management Group: the Meander Resource Management Group (MRMG). Note the joint MRMG and TCA (Timber Communities Australia) logos on the letterheads and in the associated text.

The link you provided shows that as a community group The Mersey Natural Resource Management Group has worked to provide facilities at the Meander Reserve. This is a good result but it is not commercial forestry operations. TCA supports many non commercial forestry activities because they are good corporate citizens.
I’m not trying to be rude but maybe you didn’t get the job as you didn’t understand what the organisation was about?

Posted by Roger on 03/09/10 at 08:48 AM

Re #68
Don’t be so consistently naive Roger. This is just one document, how many would you like? I believe the president of both organisations is one and the same.

I also didn’t apply for a job at the Meander Natural Resource Group. Learn to comprehend what you read. But, maybe I didn’t get the other job because I didn’t want it either, hmmm?

Russell I thought this had been clarified when you made similar statements in the Tas Country and we responded to your incorrect letters at that point.
Here are the facts! The Mersey NRM is a not for profit community based incorporated association with community groups as its members rather than idividuals formed to undertake environmental on ground works.
This has largely been done through the Work for the Dole program. These works have made a real difference to both the environment and community amenities in this period. Typically these projects could not have taken place without the Mersey NRM and its WFD participants and Mersey NRM equipment pool. No other organisation in this State has the capability and resources that the community can access for projects when they have little or no money. Mersey NRM provides the community highly valuable services and must be continued.In order to continue to provide these services Mersey NRM undertakes the following:-

1.As a completely separate business units we undertake commercial activities that have included Job Placement, Commercial spray contracting, and for 2 years we pruned trees on a commercial basis for Forestry Tasmania the group also runs a portable sawmilling operation to remove weed trees.
2. By forming partnerships with local government that make a contribution each year.
3. By undertaking specific projects funded by grants from State or Federal Governments.
NO WFD PARTICIPANT HAS EVER UNDERTAKEN FORESTRY OPERATIONS OF ANY KIND.
IF A WFD PARTICIPANT EVER HAD THE ABILITY OR INTEREST IN A POSITION WE HAD AVAILABLE AND THEY HAD THE CAPABILITY TO FULFIL THAT POSITION THEY CEASED TO BE A WFD PARTICIPANT AND BECAME AN EMPLOYEE OF MERSEY NRM ON FULL AWARD WAGES AND BENIFITS.
WE ARE PROUD OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS PROVIDED PAID EMPLOYMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 PEOPLE THAT ORIGINALLY CAME TO US AS WFD PARTICIPANTS.
At no time have we ever conducted commercial forestry operation activities of any kind with WFD participants or provided such participants to Forestry Tasmania, private forestry companies,or forestry contractors.
THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE AND DISAPPOINTING THAT SUCH COMMENTS ARE BEING MADE!
How do I know this- I am the CEO of Mersey NRM and I am getting very tired of these inaccuracies!

Posted by Andrew Ford on 03/09/10 at 01:41 PM

#69 - Looks like Andrew blows your argument away Russell, and proves what we were saying was correct all along. Where is your credibility, now?

Thanks, Andrew, glad to hear that the group is prospering and going places.

Posted by Michael on 03/09/10 at 04:44 PM

Thank you Andrew.

He stated that you didn’t use work for the dole people and that you weren’t a forestry organisation.

The article on the web-link says different, doesn’t it?

Posted by Russell Langfield on 03/09/10 at 06:04 PM

#72 - Oh dear, even when the truth is right in your face, you still can’t admit you were wrong again, eh Langfield?

Posted by Michael on 03/09/10 at 10:37 PM

Re #71 & #73
I am more than happy, unlike you, to admit my mistakes.

I understood during the supervisor position’s interview that supervising WFD participants in forestry operations (pruning, weeding) was part of the job. I didn’t know that prior.

The article didn’t state practices otherwise. But Andrew, as he stated, was in the best position to answer that categorically and I happily accept his reply.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 04/09/10 at 08:16 AM

Russell, you couldn’t yell this one down for a change. It was a shock to read that you had been corrected on this point in the past (a Tas Country letter) yet you persisted pissing into the wind here.

This would be a good time to do a little soul searching. Can you ever entertain the possibility that you frequently say black is white and white is black? Your credibility is looking pretty bad. It’s time to have a road to Damascus event.

Posted by crf on 04/09/10 at 10:29 AM

Good to see you’re back crf.

Show the alleged letter.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 04/09/10 at 01:02 PM

William, #19, could you please enlighten me as to the locations of the gates down your way? Are you referring to the Murchison Hwy? The Ridgley Hwy? Thanks.

Posted by Bemused on 06/09/10 at 03:37 PM

Re # 74 Russell,

By your own admission you acknowledge you were told that the “forestry operations” were only pruning, weeding in your interview. These operations are not commercial forestry operations. You shouldn’t have been mentioning the WFD program with the log classification activities required on a commercial forestry operation. As Andrew stated no WFD participant has ever participated in any forestry activities commercial or otherwise.

Posted by Roger on 06/09/10 at 03:51 PM

77 - everywhere.

Posted by JohnWade on 06/09/10 at 04:41 PM

Langfield (#76),

You ask “show me the letter”.

As Andrew Ford said (#70): “Russell I thought this had been clarified when you made similar statements in the Tas Country and we responded to your incorrect letters at that point.”

What game are you playing this time?

Posted by crf on 06/09/10 at 06:23 PM

#77. Bemused.
Yes I would be happy to do so.
The Murchison Highway has an extensive reach along the inner Coastal areas toward this the North-Western/ Mid-West-Coast Highway.
There are many locked forestry gates fronting this old Murchison Highway either-side.
A starting point along the ‘new regarded Murchison Highway,’ traveling from Burnie on Southwards, the gates begin in the Hampshire, area down ‘toward’ the Tullah/Rosebery/Queenstown townships, then on down past the Waratah turn off, until the plantations move away from the Highway before and approaching Mt Pearse.

The old Highway through Hellyer Gorge is now a proliferation of Forestry gates to plantations stretching from areas North of Waratah, to the Tewkesbery outskirts.

These are the areas more familiar to myself, apart from the ‘Tarkine (declining) Forested areas.’
My familiarity to these areas should not suggest that I have presumably tresspassed into these plantation forested areas, as plantation forests repel me from going near them.

Google Earth does a fair job of viewing the numerous plantation areas and of course the roads leading to such areas.

By way of interest the later extension of the new Murchison Highway from Waratah, north to towards Ridgely, is said to be a revamped forest accessing road to much of this region of Tasmania.

I do hope you do not want an accurate count of locked forestry gates in this said region?

WB.

Posted by William Boeder on 06/09/10 at 09:40 PM

#81 - Those gates would be on Gunns Limited private property, William, from Hampshire to the Cradle Link intersection. Not Forestry Tasmania or any other ‘public’ land that you wish to name. So the public does not have access rights to it, regardless of what you believe.

Posted by Michael on 06/09/10 at 10:10 PM

From Bemused #77, answered by Michael #82, (A dual personality maybe?) My advice is that you contact the selling-agents of firewood tickets down our way during those bygone years, twas they whom also advised where to obtain said firewood.
At the time I was helping an unfortunate, not myself, (I have no wood heating in my house.)

So Michael, all correct obeyed and above board!

Cheerio,

WB.

Posted by William Boeder on 07/09/10 at 12:01 AM

William, god forbid,certainly not a dual personality. but yes, these gates that you refer to as Forestry are actually gunns gates and therefore on private property. I believe that you may of been referring to the now defunct firewood permit system that operated in the area ( and still does to a lesser extent ), that allowed members of the public to gather firewood from the wood waste left behind from harvesting. And contrary to popular belief, gunns does not “lock up” all its forests, they do allow public access for all kinds of recreational activities.

Posted by Bemused on 07/09/10 at 09:18 AM

Bemused #84.
I would like to offer that any person without any form of authority that dared to enter upon this so referenced extensive Gunns Ltd empire of forest operations, would indeed be the bravest of individuals.
Common laws and forestry laws are not in any way related to each other.
So tis but the brave-hearted and foolish-hearted persons that would boldly seek to enter and engage in any type of recreational activities upon such clear-felled native forest wild-life killing grounds.
The hostilities rampant in this State are not so much dissimilar to my time engaged in the military forces in South-East Asia.

Posted by William Boeder on 07/09/10 at 10:16 AM

Oh William, what a pretty turn of phrase you possess. Unfortunatley it doesnt hide the fact that you know not of which you speak…Over 2000+ recreational visits recorded on the Gunns NW estate alone in the 09/10 financial year. Brave souls indeed, the timid angler and apiarist.And I dont think they had to dodge a single claymore…

Posted by Bemused on 07/09/10 at 10:44 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.